Why Didn’t Marco Rubio Knock Out John Kasich?

The Florida senator had the money—and the material—to bombard his establishment rival with attack ads. Instead, he ignored Kasich altogether.

March 18, 2016

When Marco Rubio exited the presidential race on Tuesday
after being flattened in Florida by Donald Trump, the political world was
puzzled: How had John Kasich, a politician with little
personal magnetism and a record as Ohio governor that would repel most hardline conservatives, become the last establishment contender standing against Trump and
Ted Cruz?

Rubio himself is largely to blame. He ignored the Ohio
governor for months, and even after Kasich finished second in New Hampshire
with his “prince
of light” act, Rubio failed to attack him—choosing instead to throw
millions of dollars into ineffectively hitting Cruz and Trump.Of all the many
strategic blunders that Rubio’s campaign committed, this may have been the
single most inexplicable.

Unlike Trump, who has proven immune
to almost every attack leveled at him, Kasich has two big, whopping strikes
against him in conservatives’ eyes that Rubio could have exploited successfully.
Kasich was a senior executive at Lehman Brothers from
2001 through 2008, when the firm collapsed, sending global markets into a
tailspin—hardly an attractive resume item in a populist year like this one. And
as governor, Kasich made the controversial decision to expand
Medicaid for 650,000 new Obamacare enrollees in Ohio—a capital offense
among Republican voters who prize ideological purity above all else.

Two of the other candidates competing in the “establishment
lane,” Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, wielded those liabilities in attack ads
after Kasich shot up in the New Hampshire polls in January—but only briefly. Christie
released an
ad hitting the Ohio governor for his Lehman Brothers connections: “As a
banker at Lehman Brothers, a Wall Street bank that failed, Kasich made millions
while taxpayers were forced to bail out Wall Street.” Right to Rise, the super
PAC bankrolling almost all the ads for Bush, slammedKasich for expanding Medicaid and
cutting jobs at a local Air Force base in Ohio. Immediately before the New Hampshire primary, a nonprofit called the American
Future Fund also released an ad attacking Kasich for supporting common core and increasing taxes (Both Trump and Kasich have alleged that the group is somehow
affiliated with the Rubio campaign, though that remains unproven).

These were strong
ads, undermining Kasich’s shtick as a regular ol’ guy with working-class roots.
But the attacks ended there. The other establishment contenders engaged
in a “circular
firing squad” that bruised them all, except for Kasich, who left New
Hampshire with a strong second-place finish—and with the fiction
that he was the
only genuinely nice candidate in this race intact.

Even after New Hampshire, the Rubio campaign failed to recognize the
Kasich threat. In the month after New Hampshire, Rubio rarely, if ever, said a
word about Kasich—even after Bush and
Christie dropped out, leaving Kasich as the only other pretender to the establishment
throne. No attack ads, and no sharp words
during the debates—where, once again, Kasich was allowed to stay safely above
the fray.

When Rubio finally acknowledged that Kasich might be trouble, it
was long after Super Tuesday—and far too late to save his sinking campaign.
Conservative Solutions announced
on March 9 that it would air an ad in Florida that attacked Kasich for increasing
state spending and levying taxes on “cars, laundry, lawns, gyms, internet,
phones, repairs” and so on—a curious decision, since the Ohio governor never campaigned in Rubio’s home state, and was drawing less than 10 percent in polls
leading up to March 15. Rubio was simultaneously encouraging his supporters to vote
for Kasich in Ohio to deny Trump that state’s delegates, which probably undermined the super PAC’s efforts to attack Kasich in Florida.

Rubio could have finished off Kasich before last Tuesday. He
certainly had the funds: The Rubio campaign reported
in January that it had ended 2015 with nearly $10.4 million cash on hand, while
Conservative Solutions, his main super PAC, had $13.9 million to spend. The
reluctance to hit Kasich is doubly strange considering that TV ads were the
central component of Rubio’s campaign all along: He relied almost entirely on
them to get his message across to voters in the early states, in lieu of investing
in field organizers and campaign offices.

The lead-up to Super Tuesday was Rubio’s best chance to pounce on
Kasich—particularly in Virginia, where the Florida senator ended up losing by
only 30,000 votes to Trump, while Kasich won 95,000 votes. Had Rubio poked holes
in Kasich’s “prince
of light and hope” persona
with stories
about his notoriously hot temper, and gone after him on Medicaid and Lehman Brothers, he might have added Virginia to his victory in Minnesota
on Super Tuesday. That would have given the Florida senator some semblance of
momentum heading to Florida, and put him in a decent position to win the eight
states or territories he would need, according to GOP
rules, to be nominated at a brokered convention.

Instead, the Republican establishment is left with Kasich as
its standard-bearer: a candidate who not only has an anything but purely
populist or conservative record, but also has little money or campaign organization.
Kasich lacks the photogenic panache and occasional eloquence of Rubio. He has
none of the wealthy donors whom Bush and Rubio rallied to their cause. And so
far, he’s won just one state—his own.

THIS WEEK’S ADS

New TV commercials flooded the airwaves leading up the crucial super (duper) Tuesday primaries on March 15—and a few new ones have aired since, targeting the Arizona primary on March 22. We’ve analyzed the ten most notable spots from this week and last, and listed the rest below. You can see every presidential spot that’s aired in this campaign cycle at the New Republic’s2016 Campaign Ad Archive.

Marco Rubio: “Basic”

Impact: Conservative Solutions was really reaching for a catchy tagline in this attack ad on Ohio Governor John Kasich. The commercial begins with the awkward line: “Here’s the basic on John Kasich.” Why not say “the basics on John Kasich,” rather than throwing grammatical correctness to the wind?

Donald Trump: “John Kasich: All Talk No Action”

Type: Attack

Who Paid for It? The Trump campaign

Reach: Aired in Ohio

Impact: This ad likely had little impact in Ohio, where voters were already well aware that their governor worked for Lehman Brothers before the 2008 financial crisis. Furthermore, the ad was only up on Ohio television for a few hours before New Day for America, the super PAC supporting John Kasich, got it removed, pointing out that the spot did not, as required by law, include the “paid for by Donald Trump” disclaimer at the end. Trump usually puts his disclaimers at the beginning of his ads, but he had never gotten in trouble for that choice before.

Donald Trump: “Corrupt Marco”

Type: Attack ad

Who Paid for It? The Trump campaign

Reach: Aired in Florida

Impact: This ad dredged up old accusations that have dogged Rubio since his days in the Florida state House: that he switched a vote after selling his house to the mother of a lobbyist, and that he used GOP credit cards for personal expenses. These allegations have been bandied around for years without materially damaging Rubio; most likely, Trump just wanted something to make it look like he was fighting back against Rubio and the other outside groups that were pouring millions into campaign ads aimed at stopping Trump in Florida.

John Kasich: “Rise”

Type: Biographical ad

Who Paid for It? The Kasich campaign

Reach: Aired in Ohio

Impact: With its images of Ohioans taking the first steps on the moon and inventing the lightbulb, this uplifting ad is classic John Kasich—reassuring, uplifting, and optimistic. By repeating the words “we” and “our,” the narrator reminds viewers that Kasich is one of them.

Ted Cruz: “Corporate Welfare King”

Type: Attack ad

Who Paid for It? Keep the Promise I, a super PAC supporting Ted Cruz

Reach: Aired in Florida

Impact: Ted Cruz famously campaigned against corn subsidies in Iowa, and in this ad, he took on the big sugar industry in Florida with an attack aimed at Marco Rubio. The message itself is a little hard to follow: First the narrator says that Rubio gives tax dollars to billionaires, then he says that Big Sugar bankrolls his campaign, and lastlyheasserts that Rubio and Hillary Clinton are the same kind of politician. But the ad does have some nifty slow-motion shots of sugar being poured into white drifts that makes it look a little like this scene from Scarface.

Our Principles PAC: “Quotes”

Impact: Our Principles PAC and several other #NeverTrump groups bombarded the Sunshine Statewith attack ads assailing Trump for his failed business endeavors, like Trump University and the Trump Tower in Tampa. But this may have been their most savage attempt to sink his campaign. That said, Trump supporters are primarily men, which makes you wonder whether this commercial—which scrolls through some pretty repugnant things that Trump has reportedly said about women in the past—would have done much to deter his base.

Bernie Sanders: “Stood with American Workers”

Type: Issue ad

Who Paid for It? The Sanders campaign

Reach: Aired in Ohio and Illinois

Impact: This ad latched onto the argument that Sanders used to pull off a startling upset in Michigan on March 8: that international trade deals like the TPP are responsible for the job losses throughout the Rust Belt. The ad lists the numbers of jobs that each recent trade deal cost American workers. But the problem with commercials that throw a slew of figures at viewers is that you never really know where the figures are coming from, or exactly how they relate to you.

Bernie Sanders: “Tenemos Familias”

Impact: The Sanders campaign excels at ads like this one: longer videos, beautifully shot, featuring a charismatic narrator. Sanders previously used this format in an ad called “It’s Not Over,” which featured Eric Garner’s daughter talking about the candidate’s commitment to racial justice. These commercials are more poignant and memorable than an ordinary campaign ad. They leave a lasting impression—even though this ad only aired once.

Bernie Sanders: “Bull”

Type: Issue ad

Who Paid for It? The Sanders campaign

Reach: Aired in Arizona

Impact: Both Democratic candidates are doubling down on Arizona, releasing new campaign ads targeting the state before its primary next Tuesday. In this one, Sanders goes after Wall Street, playing on the fact that Arizonans were especially hard hit in the housing crisis. Raul Grijalva, an Arizona congressman, is a persuasive spokesperson for Sanders because he diverges slightly from the usual talking points about Wall Street and lets his anger with financial executives shine through with lines like, “They know they’re not getting bull from him,” and “You’ve not only stood up to them, you’ve gotten in their face.”

Hillary Clinton: “Better”

Type: Issue ad

Who Paid for It? The Clinton campaign

Reach: Aired in Arizona

Impact: In contrast to the militant overhaul of Wall Street that Sanders promises in his Arizona ad, Clinton offers a more straightforward pledge in hers: I’ll make schools better (also, I enjoy hugging kids). It illustrates the divide between Sanders voters, who, like Grijalva in “Bull,” are really angry, and Clinton voters, who want to check off more centrist agenda items like preschool for every child and reforms to the student-loan system.